Rupert Murdock was born in Australia, but in the 80s decided he wanted to buy a news station in the United States. Unfortunately for him, U.S. law required one had to be a U.S. citizen to do so. No problem -- Rupert Murdock had a friend in a very high place. That friend's name was Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan expedited Murdock's American citizenship application, and enabled Murdock's dream to control a portion of the news broadcast within the United States to become a reality.

Sometimes when one does a favor for a friend, reciprocity comes into play. I am attaching a link which describes Murdock's role in participating in a "Cold-War style propaganda" program. Read the entire article when you have a chance because it will make one's hair stand on end to learn all in one place exactly how much influence this conservative Australian has had in defining what many Americans believe. Of course, many DU'ers know much of this information but perhaps some of the younger members are unaware.

Also, when you read of Murdock's personal perspectives on different issues, you will recognize those perspectives in many of today's Republican politicians. It is good to know where some of this crap originated and how it gets spread around....

The Reagan administration pulled right-wing media executives Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife into a CIA-organized “perception management” operation which aimed Cold War-style propaganda at the American people in the 1980s, according to declassified U.S. government records.

This example of how a former conservative United States President used his position to usher into the United States' broadcasting arena someone like Rupert Murdock and the catastrophic influence Murdock has had on news broadcast to the American people over the decades makes President Barack Obama's Executive Orders look mellow, if only because he has done everything in the light of day for the public to see.

And then of course there were 18 immigrations reforms by recent Republican Presidents, none of which were power grabs simply because none of those Presidents were born in Kenya and all were Republicans. See the difference?

So the next time you hear the Republicans complain about President Obama's power grabs on immigration reform, think of Ronald Reagan and Rupert Murdock. No one was throwing the impeachment javelin at Reagan because the Republicans were too busy worshiping him.

If you are reading this thread at this late hour, please give it a kick for the morning crowd.

She takes a very active part in the Clinton Global Initiative. And yes, I do believe that President Obama thinks he owes more to the Clintons than he does Labor.

I also believe President Obama has as a personal goal following the trail of former President Bill Clinton into playing a larger role on the world stage (after he leaves office). Standing by Labor at the expense of Bill and Hillary Clinton gets him exactly nowhere in the aftermath of his two terms.

Don't misconstrue these words as meaning I hold the President in disfavor. I voted for him twice, I believe he has done a remarkable job on handling the economic recovery in the Bush* aftermath, and he has done some very positive things such as ACA. However, he did say in his campaign days, he didn't want to be President of the blue states or the red states, he wanted to be President of the United States. In my opinion, that is exactly what he has done -- lived up to what he said he wanted to do. One cannot say he was not honest about his intentions.

I believe he will be regarded as one of the greatest Presidents we have had sit in the Oval Office.

the same as FDR is by many senior Americans: the best President ever to serve in the White Office. Both stepped out boldly to help the little guy in need and left a legacy of dramatically truly improving the lives of the people they served.

One might say both of these Presidents lifted millions of Americans out of a depression.

In bold contrast, the policies of the Republicans are to repeal the programs of FDR's New Deal and any and all policies of our current President designed to lift the poor, the middle class, and the underprivileged to a higher plane.

And in all reality, that is exactly what is keeping Republicans awake at night -- worrying about who are all these people going to vote for in the next election.

He quotes a conservative commentator from Texas who laments there is no chance for a Republican Presidential candidate to win in 2016. O'Donnell also said the Republicans will not be able to hold the Senate for longer than two years. In 2016, Democrats will be defending one (count 'em again -- one) Senate seat, and Republicans must hold on to 22. O'Donnell said the odds of the latter happening are zero.

Here are four paragraphs from the column he references, but I hope you will find the time to read the entire piece. At one point, O'Donnell said no matter who the Republicans run , they lose. Better still, it doesn't matter who the Democrats run, they win. Thinking about all of the discussions we have had here about our alternative choices, this might be the one Presidential race we can run who we want. Think about that. And the reason is because of the Blue Wall, described in the article. Remember that phrase when you get depressed over the events of these days.

Which way is right? With Chris Ladd
The missing story of the 2014 election

Few things are as dangerous to a long term strategy as a short-term victory. Republicans this week scored the kind of win that sets one up for spectacular, catastrophic failure and no one is talking about it.

What emerges from the numbers is the continuation of a trend that has been in place for almost two decades. Once again, Republicans are disappearing from the competitive landscape at the national level across the most heavily populated sections of the country while intensifying their hold on a declining electoral bloc of aging, white, rural voters. The 2014 election not only continued that doomed pattern, it doubled down on it. As a result, it became apparent from the numbers last week that no Republican candidate has a credible shot at the White House in 2016, and the chance of the GOP holding the Senate for longer than two years is precisely zero.

For Republicans looking for ways that the party can once again take the lead in building a nationally relevant governing agenda, the 2014 election is a prelude to a disaster. Understanding this trend begins with a stark graphic.

Behold the Blue Wall:
The Blue Wall is block of states that no Republican Presidential candidate can realistically hope to win. Tuesday that block finally extended to New Hampshire, meaning that at the outset of any Presidential campaign, a minimally effective Democratic candidate can expect to win 257 electoral votes without even trying. That’s 257 out of the 270 needed to win.

(emphasis added.)

We have great hope for our political future. Between now and 2016, we need to focus on minimizing the damage the Republicans will do, and we must brainstorm about who we would like to run. If you believe the logic of this article, and I do, we should focus on choosing the candidate who will best serve the public interests and not that of the wealthy -- the one percenters, and the corporations.

and even on our Democratic political website is beyond appalling. This is a technique Karl Rove has hyped the last 14 years in order to pit the younger people against middle-aged and senior citizens. Just looking at the number of references of old, white folks on this one thread alone is unbelievable.

Definition:

Ageism is a type of discrimination that involves prejudice against people based upon their age. Similar to racism and sexism, ageism involves holding negative stereotypes about people of different ages. The term ageism was first used by gerontologist Robert N. Butler to describe the discrimination of older adults. Today, the tern is often applied to any type of age-based discrimination, whether it involves prejudice against children, teenagers, adults or senior-citizens.

This is a very dangerous road for people to start down, claiming ageism is not discrimination. If society as a whole buys into that claim, this practice can accelerate to adversely impact other groups of Americans, such as children and teenagers (see the above quote.)

People on this site which are cool with using this term I hope will take a time-out to rethink this practice.

What? Was I so tired last evening I was seeing things on MSNBC’s trailer scrolling across the bottom of the screen? I waited a few minutes, and then THERE IT WAS AGAIN. I had to look this up! A Google search of that tag led me to the address below.

A string of GOP victories in races for governor and secretary of state means the party will control the voting process in key presidential battlegrounds from Nevada to Florida. That’ll allow the GOP to impose restrictive rules about casting and counting ballots that could disenfranchise predominantly Democratic voters.
* * *
It would be a repeat of what happened in 2000 and 2004, when Republican state officials in Florida and Ohio, respectively, gave George W. Bush a massive boost by doing all they could to make it harder for voters to have their voices heard.

As you might expect, I immediately thought of Chris Christie and remembered his saying words to the effect the GOP needed to get control over the voting mechanics in 2016. And there he was -- in the same article!

Chris Christie made clear last week he understood what was at stake. The New Jersey governor and chair of the Republican Governors Association asked a friendly crowd whether they’d rather have Republicans or Democrats “overseeing the voting mechanism” in key states like Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida.

The next lane closures Americans may be protesting might be those blocking their access to their 2016 voting location. What are we going to do about it? Sit down and shut up, as Christie would say? I don't think so.

How do we make our voices heard and our votes count in 2016? We need to start thinking about this now....

Republicans will have to defend 24 seats as compared to just 10 for Democrats in 2016. And, the raw numbers don't even tell the whole story. Seven seats currently held by Republican incumbents -- Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- were all carried by President Obama in 2008 and 2012. And there is chatter about potential Republican retirements in Arizona and Iowa; if either John McCain or Chuck Grassley decided to call it a career, each of those races would be major Democratic targets.

On the other side of the coin, Republican takeover opportunities are few and far between. By far the most endangered Democrat is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who survived in 2010 but could be facing Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval (R), who won a second term with more than 70 percent of the vote on Tuesday, in 2016. Reid has said he will run again although his demotion from Majority Leader to Minority Leader might make him rethink those plans. The only other Democrat who starts the 2016 cycle in serious jeopardy is freshman Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, who, like Reid, was a surprise winner in 2010. Sen.-elect Cory Gardner's (R) convincing win over Sen. Mark Udall (D) on Tuesday in the Rocky Mountain State will undoubtedly energize Republicans although it's less clear what the GOP bench looks like for a race against Bennet.

A little more commentary at the the link above. What this article does not really flush out though is that the words uttered by Christie to the effect the GOP must gain control over the voting mechanism in 2016 is more of a real threat today than it was the day he uttered those words. Not only swing states but other key states important to a Democratic win as of the mid-term elections will be controlled by Republican governors.

There is no limit to which Republicans will stoop to purloin an election. As they said in 2000, "win at all costs" -- and that they will.

She then changed the 29 to 30. That makes my hair stand on end. Slowly but surely the Republicans are buying out the whole country through the votes of a minority of the electorate (millions are blocked and/or just not counted or are no-shows election day). Couple that minority of the electorate voting with the super-rich pouring money into the campaigns of their political lieutenants who promote and/or protect their interests and one sees a recipe for the true oligarchy Bernie Sanders keeps warning us this Country is becoming.

As Mitch McConnell came out swinging post election day saying he had the fillibuster-proof votes to pass the Keystone Pipeline (didn't mention the President had to approve it), I couldn't help but wonder exactly how much Koch money flowed into his campaign. As he warms up to step into his Senate Majority Leader shoes, he immediately begins to work for his patrons best interests, mentioning not only the pipeline but lowering corporate taxes as well. The Koch Brothers stand to make ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS if the pipeline is approved....

And I personally sit here wondering if Maryland is to become the next Wisconsin since I learned Hogan has said he is going to take the State into an entirely different direction. I guess the Republicans will be coming after our state legislature next ....

I just posted this thought on another thread but want to give it more exposure.

For forever in time, we have heard that saying "to the victor belongs the spoils." Not 24 hours after the election, a Republican interviewed last night on cable suggested compromises Democrats and Republicans could make in the spirit of bipartisanship. The first suggestion from his lips was the passage of the Keystone Pipeline and passage of the proposed trade agreements now under consideration.

Approval of the Keystone Pipeline would result in a 100 million dollar profit for the Koch Brothers. They spent millions of dollars (perhaps I should say invested) in this mid-term election. Ads in Maryland alone ran virtually nonstop by the Republicans reviewing all the tax increases enacted by O'Malley/Brown. Most of them were Mickey Mouse charges, but included in the ads were a host of other ridulous taxes that I personally never witnessed enacted; for instance, a tax on diapers of all things.

But it does appear that should the Koch Brothers get the rewards they have been seeking in return for their "investments" in some of the politicians we saw making acceptance speeches, the brunt bruising for some of our most prized tools, for instance, the EPA, Social Security, Medicare, the Affordable Care Act, and other salient programs will be readily apparent as talks of privatzation, reform, or cancellation commence. Remember, Ben Bernanke said in a Senate hearing aired on cable "Social Security can be repealed."

To the victors belong the spoils -- well, only if we allow that to happen. I am one who today is grieving over the loss of the Maryland Governship, as well as a number of other races, but tomorrow I plan to start to brainstorm over what we can do to protect what we have that we prize as social redemption for the benefit of the poor, the elderly, the disabled, those living in poverty, those who still are in jeopardy for having no health care, protection of the environment, crucial restrictions on the firearm goals Republicans seek to implement for the National Rifle Association (whose members the majority of which I have been told support common-sense controls such as background checks), and of critical importance, the right of every registered citizen to cast and have counted a vote in his or her elections.

I ask you to join me in brainstorming what we can do to start to implement a recovery from these losses. After all, when someone throws a rock at you and puts out your eye, you need to start looking around for boulders to fire back. (That is a metaphor, not a threat.) Our boulders can be found by cooperating with one another to develop coherent strategies we can develop to start to take our government back in 2016.

Hogan is a tea-party type Republican. He opposes handgun background checks, thinks everyone who wants to own an assault rifle should be able to have one. Crime is already up in this state and that is just what we need -- people walking around with assault rifles.

Do you want to know what happened? Non-stop ads running the last couple of weeks -- probably financed by the Koch Brothers -- touting all the tax increases during this administration. I could not believe it. And Brown did not answer them.

We should just rename the Country the United States of the Koch Brothers because they along with the other billionaires own the Country now. We are just the minions who are led to believe by the press and our corrupt politicians that we actually have honest elections here. It is inconceivable to me that there were so many virtual ties in tonight's elections and the Republicans had all the successes they did.

And I think I am done with MSNBC and its tilted reporting. I had to turn the television off. Keith Olbermann sure called it correctly when he started looking for another job so he could leave that network. He privately said with Comcast's partnering up with NBC, he (Olbermann) would be muzzled. I could not believe some of the comments, really stupid remarks, made by the panel this evening. One of the standout offenses was made by Andrea Mitchell who said in effect this loss would ruin O'Malley's chance to run for President in 2016.

The only honest broker was Ed, who was reporting in Florida. Clearly, he was disturbed by what he was seeing.